The Supreme Court held that dismissal from service for suppression of involvement in a criminal case was disproportionate, despite misconduct being proved. The punishment was modified to compulsory retirement, entitling the deceased appellant’s legal representatives to arrears of pension and family pension. Acquittal with a specific finding of alibi further warranted penalty modulation.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force in 1994. In 2007, an FIR was registered against him, his father, and brothers under Sections 363 and 366 IPC for alleged abduction of a girl. The charge-sheet was initially filed only against his brother, but in 2010, the appellant was summoned under Section 319 CrPC, and charges were framed against him. Immediately thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated for concealing his involvement in the criminal case and for failing to report his arrest and detention to the department. An inquiry report noted that the appellant was on duty in Delhi on the date of the incident, yet he was dismissed from service in June 2011. His revision petition was dismissed. During the pendency of his writ petition before the High Court, the appellant was acquitted in the criminal trial. The trial court specifically recorded that he was not present at the place of occurrence and was performing official duties in Delhi. Despite this, the High Court dismissed his petition, observing that the acquittal was based on technical grounds. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, where he passed away in October 2023 at age 54. His legal representatives pursued the appeal seeking quashment of dismissal or conversion of punishment to compulsory retirement for pensionary benefits.
Procedural History:
The disciplinary proceedings commenced with a charge-sheet dated 12 January 2011 issued under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. Following an inquiry, the Senior Circle Security Commissioner passed an order dated 24 June 2011 dismissing the appellant from service. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General, Chief Protection Commissioner, which was dismissed on 18 January 2012. The appellant thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.6411 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court assailing the dismissal order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the appellant was acquitted in the criminal trial on 16 November 2013. The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated 29 July 2015, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the acquittal was based on technical considerations and that the disciplinary authority’s decision warranted no interference. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No.13402 of 2015. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the original appellant died on 3 October 2023, and his legal representatives were brought on record. On 26 November 2025, the Supreme Court delivered judgment partly allowing the appeal, modifying the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement.